The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Back to feedPost
Two systems can store the same information and still perform very differently.
The difference may simply be how that information is organized.
Imagine processing thousands of records, but each operation only needs one small part of every record.
If the system keeps loading information it does not need, the processor spends time moving unnecessary data instead of doing useful work.
A different layout can keep frequently used information closer together, reducing that overhead and improving processing speed.
But this is where engineering judgment matters.
There is no universally “fastest” way to organize data.
If the workload usually needs an entire record, keeping everything together may make sense. If it repeatedly scans one field across thousands of records, another layout may perform better.
So before changing a data structure, I ask:
How is this data actually used?
What is on the critical path?
Does the measurement justify the added complexity?
Performance decisions should follow access patterns, not assumptions. The best structure is the one that matches how the system actually works.
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Related posts
Not every new feature needs its own screen.
It's something worth thinking about when a digital product starts growing.
A new feature gets introduced, so a new page is created.
Then another feature arrives. Another page. Another menu item.
Eventually, the navigation starts reflecting everything the product has accumulated rather than how people actually use it.
And that's where things can become unnecessarily complicated.
When you're designing or improving an existing product, adding functionality isn't just about finding space for another interface.
It's about understanding how that functionality fits into the workflows people already have.
Imagine an invoicing platform introducing automated payment reminders.
You could create an entirely separate section for managing them.
Or you could integrate that functionality directly into the invoice workflow, where users already have the relevant context.
Both approaches can make sense.
If the feature involves complex configurations, reporting, or needs to be managed independently, a dedicated section might be justified.
But if it's something people naturally need while completing another task, moving them to a separate screen could introduce unnecessary steps.
I think this is particularly important with established products.
Every new feature affects more than the area where it appears.
It can change navigation, information hierarchy, existing user habits, and the overall complexity of the experience.
And the more a product grows, the more important those decisions become.
Sometimes introducing a new capability means creating an entirely new experience.
Other times, the stronger solution is making that capability feel like it has always belonged there.
How do you show someone where to look on a busy dashboard?
For a manufacturing platform, we tried two ways. A zooms straight into the real interface and highlights what matters. B steps away from the screen and tells the same idea with a simple visual story.
Which one would make you understand it faster, A or B?
14 votes
Ends in 8h
2 - More detailed I think
An agent that tidies your data.
Which one do you prefer over the other - left or right?
1 voted
17%
5 voted
83%
6 votes
Closed
A data-tidying agent sounds useful.